nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Netview and TEC

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: Netview and TEC
From: James Shanks <James_Shanks@TIVOLI.COM>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:20:58 -0500
It had better be one fast, multi-processor box, with a huge amount of memory.
Both NetView and TEC individually have been know to take up all the resources a
box can give and literally drive it to its knees.  There are NetView sizing
guidelines in the appendix to the Installation and Configuration manual that you
should follow, but remember these are only recommended minimums.  I don't know
about TEC.    I have seen this down in the lab, and the results are that TEC is
rather slow, but I have never seen it in a customer environment.

There are other concerns which militate against this idea, too,  in that it
makes it difficult to isolate performance problems or to take the box down for
maintenance.

James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support



Andre Faille <Andre.Faille@SITA.INT> on 11/19/99 09:45:44 AM

Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView
      <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>

To:   NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc:    (bcc: James Shanks/Tivoli Systems)
Subject:  Netview and TEC




Hi all,

Our Tivoli planned design calls for one TMR on a SUN machine with inventory,
remote distribution, etc.... and a second SUN machine with NetView and TEC
installed.

I know that TEC is usually planned on a separate machine altogether, but for
arguments sake, do you know of any reason or counter-directive with installing
NetView and TEC on the same machine (but different partitions)?

TEC would use a third machine running Sybase for it's databases.

Thanks for your input....

Andre Faille
LAN Management Analyst, SITA-EQUANT
andre.faille@sita.int


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web